Comments

  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    Therefore, saying that "there could be no personal property" does not follow hence his argument fails. — MoK

    It is not about personal property. It is about the action i.e. stealing.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    Why don't you think Kant is right in this instance? — Corvus

    Because I think that morality cannot be objective.     — MoK
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    If someone talks badly to other folks about you with false accusations and lies about you for some egotistic motives for him. Would you not reason and judge it is morally wrong? — Corvus

    From my perspective, he did something evil and morally wrong. He may think otherwise.     — MoK
    Obviously his moral sense doesn't exist. Why should you care his thoughts make sense?

    Could you give a reason why an action is universally and objectively wrong? — MoK
  • On religion and suffering
    As mentioned in an earlier comment, there is an unspoken convention that this is not something that can be considered in the secular context, as by definition, secular culture can't accomodate it. — Wayfarer

    When the meta religious thinkers have absolutely no experience on the practical side of the religion, or exclude the secular aspect of the religion, it is doubtful the meta religious reasoning could arrive at the knowledge they supposed to arrive.
  • On religion and suffering
    How? I argue, take flame and put your finger in it. What does this experience "tell" you? It issues forth an injuction NOT to do this, and injunction that is beyond law and duty conceived in a language to govern the consenting, or somethign like that. It is something as certain as logic itself. — Astrophel

    That doesn't sound like the work of Ethics. It would more sound like the work of inductive reasoning. You try something, if it hurts, you learn not to do it i.e. trial and error.

    Ethics don't tell about these things. Ethics are the code of conducts between human beings while living on the earth i.e. Ethics will tell you what is morally good things to do, and what are not. If you do moral wrongs, then you will be judged as a morally corrupted by the other folks. If you do morally good things to others, then they will judge you a morally good guy.

    If you lived in a desert by yourself with no one around you, Ethics wouldn't apply to you. Because you have no one to interact with. Ethics emerges when you do things to others, and others do things to you. It is a value judgements on the actions of folks to other folks in folks mind. Good and bad in Ethics don't exist in the universe.

    In other words, if you tortured a bowlful of sands for no reason, or if you strangled a scabby cactus, there is no morality arising in these actions. Morality only matters when you are dealing with people on the way how you treated them, and how they treated you.

    I agree religion has some sayings on Ethics and Morality such as in the form of the 10 commandment in the Bible, which still forms the underlying foundation of morality in modern times. But I am still not convinced if it could tell much about the world around us. Well they do, but all in their own terms and doctrines, which are not logical and not rational way.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    God can make us Omniscient. Whether we can become Omnipresent is however the subject of discussion. — MoK
    Interesting claim indeed. How could we become omnipresent? And you believe God can make us Omniscient? What are your reasoning for the possibility? How could it be done?

    Whether two different Omnipresent entities can distinguish themselves from one another knowing that they both exit everywhere is the subject of discussion and contemplation (I am currently thinking about this). — MoK
    Yes, I would be interested to know about your ideas on that.

    That is a problem since there is no way to distinguish two entities if they are both Omnipresent. — MoK
    Well if the omnipresent beings are not the space and time entities, then they won't need separate space and time, would they? Therefore it would depend on the fact whether the omnipresent beings are spacetime entities or not. If not, what would be the nature of their existence?
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    He either resurrected Himself or God did it. How could He resurrect Himself if He is dead? Therefore, it must be God who resurrected Jesus. — MoK

    Sounds reasonable. If God can resurrect a dead man, he could also make him a junior God. Make sense?
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    I don't think so when there is no verse from the Bible to justify this. — MoK

    But do you see the verse in the Bible that Jesus didn't become God after the resurrection and ascended to Heaven?

    Ok, let's suppose he was not a God. How do you explain the resurrection and ascending to Heaven? Can ordinary blokes do that?

    To resurrect from death, would you not need some assistance from the real God, and become some kind semi God or another God? To ascend to Heaven without being God, would you not need some sort of rocket device such as the SpaceX?

    But it seems highly unlikely they had rocket device available to ascend to Heaven at the time. There must have been some sort of divine intervention, if it really happened. Would you not agree?
  • On religion and suffering
    To grasp religion, one has to do this. For religion is a metaphysical question of our existence. One has to ask seriously about metaphysics, and what it is. THEN the value dimension looms large. The easing of human suffering is an issue in ethics (it should be eased). And in religion ,it is about metaethics. Why is it metaethics? Because the world is a meta-world at this level of inquiry. — Astrophel

    I am not sure if religion would have its ground for its existential justification without the concepts of afterlife, promise of savior from human sufferings, good fortunes, good health, possibility of the miracles and protection from God against the uncertain world. Like it or not, those are the elements of the attractions offered to the followers of religion in the mundane world, whatever religion it might be.

    The OP title seems to be implying religion has close connection with human sufferings. No one would have taken the implication for intensifying, but wouldn't it be easing?

    If it were not, then what would be the point of religion? For understanding the universe, we have metaphysics, epistemology, logic and semantics. Could religion offer better in understanding the universe? I am not sure.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    The Bible says that He resurrected and ascended to Heaven. I am not aware of any verse that says He became God. — MoK

    Me neither. However, it seems perfectly plausible to make inference that he could only have resurrected and ascended to Heaven, because he became God after the resurrection.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    I already mentioned that the Bible is not a reliable source for morality. You mentioned Ten Commandments and I mentioned Numbers 31:17-18. — MoK
    I am not saying the Bible is the reliable source for morality. I am saying that many current morality is based on the Bible.

    I have already defined moral facts in OP. How can we say that an act is right or wrong if we cannot derive the rightness or wrongness of it from a set of facts? — MoK
    I did read the OP again. Your just wrote God must know all moral facts. That is not a definition. How can God know all moral facts, if it doesn't exist? Can you give some examples of moral facts?

    I don't think that Kant is right in this instance. — MoK
    Why don't you think Kant is right in this instance? If someone talks badly to other folks about you with false accusations and lies about you for some egotistic motives for him. Would you not reason and judge it is morally wrong?

    Anyone in the world would judge the case as morally wrong because we all have practical reason which is universal and objective according to Kant. But you don't agree with Kant. Why don't you agree with his theory? Would you need moral fact to judge that is morally wrong?
  • Skepticism as the first principle of philosophy
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus

    Blind scepticism in extremity is pointless. However as a methodology for coming to more infallible knowledge, reasonable scepticism demanding for the reasons, evidences and grounds from the claims made by science, math and religion is critically important and essenttial in philosophical debates and analysis.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    How do you know that He became God after the resurrection? — MoK

    Is it not what the Bible says? That is one of the miracles what gives the ground for Christianity as a religion.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    How could morality be objective when there is no fact/right premise that we can use to conclude whether an act is right or wrong? — MoK

    It is the moral code still the base of the most moral right or wrong. You need to read the 10 commandments, and reflect on the many moral rights and wrong now. They are all related, and originated from the code.

    I have not heard of Moral Facts before, hence I am not sure what it is, and why its non existence is the reason for moral subjectivity. Maybe it doesn't exist, because it has never existed in the first place?

    And as Kant said, we know what moral good and bad are by simply reflecting on the human actions by our practical reasoning which is universal and objective.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    Don't you see any contradiction in your conclusion? — MoK

    It is not a conclusion. It is an inference.
    It is perfectly reasonable inference, if you read any Hegel and knew about Dialectical Logic.

    From daily life, it can be also reasoned. Things don't stay as they are. All things change with time and events in the world.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    Do you want me to give you an example of moral fact? How can I give you one when there is none? — MoK

    The point is not whether it exists or not. The point is it is nothing to do with Moral good and bad.
    Read some Kant. He says we all know what moral good and bad is from our practical reasoning which is universally objective. You don't need moral facts which seems a dubious word.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    So He was not God when He was human? — MoK
    Now you are saying that He resurrected and He was God. — MoK

    That is my inference.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    Moral facts are required if morality is objective. — MoK

    You haven't answered what moral facts are. You just said moral facts are required. If you don't know what moral facts are, how can you say it is required?
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    What do you mean by making into God? — MoK

    Many folks believe he is God. He doesn't seem to have had been God when he was alive. He was just an ordinary bloke. But when he died on the cross, and resurrected, he became God.
    Ordinary folks don't resurrect after death. Only God can resurrect.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    Cool. So we are on the same page. — MoK

    But was he not made into God when he resurrected after death?
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    What do you mean by moral codes? — MoK
    For example in the Bible, there are 10 commandments.
    In other religions, I am sure they have their own moral codes.

    I already defined moral facts in OP. By moral facts, I mean a set of facts that we can derive whether an act is right or wrong. — MoK
    The ancient folks derived the moral good and bad from the religious moral codes such as 10 commandments. But Kant said, that we have the practical reason we derive the moral good and bad from all actions of humans, which are universal and objective.

    Moral facts sounds not appropriate and has nothing to do with moral good or bad.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    How couldn't Jesus know that? He is God therefore omniscient. — MoK

    Jesus was not a God. No one in human body is God.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    Yes, we do not have a common conscience on many things. We also have a common conscience on many other things. — MoK
    But we have common moral codes. That is what morality is about. Not conscience.

    How could you judge that an act is right or wrong if you don't have any moral facts? — MoK
    The moral codes give you the ground for moral judgements. What do you mean by moral facts?
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    I don't think so. I think that question refers to a state of being abandoned by God. — MoK

    We can only infer from the saying. It sounds like he himself didn't know. If he knew for sure, he wouldn't have asked. He would have made a statement.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK

    The saying in the quote is not a statement. It is in the form of question. He is asking questions. There is no truth or falsity in the question at all. He is asking someone to give him the answers for his question. It would be only true or false, if he said, " My God, You forsaken me."
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    Do you believe it? — Corvus

    Of course not. How could I believe something contrary?     — MoK

    Many things in life is contrary, but people believe them. Being contrary doesn't mean that you cannot believe it. Remember belief can be irrational, and psychological.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    I think you are talking about the conscience that the majority of people agree with it. The conscience is however not a fact. — MoK
    Conscience is your psychological state of feeling guilt when doing morally wrong things.  It is not an agreement. Morality is based on the moral code.  Moral code is in the form of "Do this" or "Don't do this". 

    Morality is about whether an action is right or wrong. The point is that one needs a fact to realize this. There are however no facts when it comes to morality. Therefore, the morality is not objective. — MoK
    Morality is a subject discussing what is morally right or wrong acts, principles, and the basis for the judgements of morally right and good actions of humans. You don't need facts. Maybe you need facts for the social science topics.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    I want to discuss two things: 1) Morality is not objective — MoK
    There are definitely the objective morality for sure. For example, harming others is morally wrong. No one in any corner of the universe would agree that is morally right.

    2) Believing in god does not resolve moral conflicts. — MoK
    Of course not. Believing itself has little do with morality. Morality is about your actions, not beliefs.

    However, there are many religious countries in the world, whose moral values are based on their God's teachings. They would say, X is morally right, because the God has said so.

    So it depends on which religion you are talking about. Even in Christian religion some of the biblical doctrines are still basis for morality such as love your neighbors, treat others as you want to get treated etc.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    I think all Christians believe that this verse is not a metaphor. — MoK
    I am not sure who all the Christians are. And are all the Christians same in their beliefs? Are all the Christians the genuine Christians? There might be folks who claim to be the Christians but turn out to be some business minded folks trying to make money off the followers. Who knows? Are you a Christian yourself? What do you feel about this point?

    They believe that Jesus died on the Cross and rose from death. — MoK
    Do you believe it?

    This verse together with other verses is paradoxical though. — MoK
    Paradoxical is used for the puzzles or linguistic problems which have no rational explanation for its contradiction.  For example, this sentence is false.  It is true if it is false, and false if it is true.  

    Absurdity is the description for the inexplicable situation from reality.  It is difficult to understand, but it is still possible to make inference and assumptions on the matter.

     The situation in the Bible is absurd, but not paradoxical.  It can be interpreted and explained in some theological way, although it might not be rational as such, and it could be a metaphor.  Or maybe God had his own ideas of doing things which human reason cannot decipher.

    Due to the circumstantial situation of the stories in the Bible, no inference is right or wrong against them.  One can accept the interpretation as reasonable or unreasonable on the basis of one's point of view.  Does it make sense?
  • On religion and suffering
    Suffering, and its inherent sacrifice, insinuates itself between complacency and affirmation (I am reminded of Dickinson's poem I Heard a Fly Buzz), and one simply cannot ignore it any more. It now becomes a meta-suffering addressed by a meta-question of its existence. Religion takes its first step. — Astrophel

    Isn't Religion supposed to ease the human suffering? Or is human suffering the part of or requirement for religion?
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    Again, God's intervention is not the subject of this thread. — MoK

    OK, you are just wanting to discuss about the morality of humans i.e.
    humans can also know moral facts if there are any known by God. — MoK
    :chin:

    Thanks for your clarification.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    Perhaps, He was experiencing the Father within Him. Most scholars think that this verse together with others is an indication that God is trion. — MoK
    :ok:

    He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK
    Going back to the OP, I wonder if the saying was a metaphor for depicting the absurdity in life on earth.

    Not just for him, but all the lives facing the suffering of existence i.e. the inevitable old age, illness and death while living. Recall we are thrown into the world without our knowledge, agreement or desire by sheer absurdity according to Heidegger?

    Absurdity is also the critical concept in some Existentialism heralded by Kierkeggard, Heidegger and Camus for the beings.

    Religious beliefs would only be upgraded into faith when one leaps into the unseen and unknown abyss into God which is beyond rational knowledge in the religious existentialism.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    Yes, there is a verse in the Bible. John 14:11: Believe me, when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. — MoK

    Cool. How did he know the Father was in him, and what does it mean by the Father was in him?
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    I am arguing that humans can also know moral facts if there are any known by God. — MoK
    You are still maintaining God's involvement in morality after claiming it was not your main point.

    Anyhow I think God if we accept Him as a moral agent would care to intervene in human affairs. — MoK
    Here as well. I am sure there are many sayings by God, which speaks on morality in the Bible. I am not familiar with the Bible, but just inferring.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    That is not the point of my discussion in this thread. — MoK

    You started the OP with "
    God is believed to be omniscient. This means that God knows all moral facts (by moral facts I mean a set of facts that rightness and wrongness of an action can be derived from) if there are any. — MoK
    , hence it sounded like God's intervention on morality was highly significant factor in the thread.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    God is believed to be omniscient. This means that God knows all moral facts (by moral facts I mean a set of facts that rightness and wrongness of an action can be derived from) if there are any. — MoK

    Even if we presume God is omniscient and know all the moral facts, but does he care or intervene on every human affairs and events happenings in the world?
  • Can we record human experience?
    Now, if we actually are able to parameterize the experience, we might just be able to recreate and capture the human experience. Essentially, you will be able to step-in your past, re-experience those moments. We might just be able to time travel in the past, only to observe though.

    Do you think this is possible?     — Ayush Jain

    It wouldn't be possible in reality. Maybe it could be recorded in films, and virtual reality settings, and one could try to replicate a certain experience of someone or yours, but it would still not be the lived experience of actual reality. The hard fact in reality is that no one can go back to the past.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK

    Maybe he was not aware of the possibility that he and God were one? Is there any saying in the Bible that he knew that he and God are one?

    What does it mean by "are one"? That sounds a bit unclear.
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    ↪EnPassant
    Of course some math are found from the already established axioms and theorems via deduction.
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    To abstract means to 'take from'; to lift the math from the reality. — EnPassant

    It seems the other way around i.e. from the reality, math is found, and applied back to the reality for the descriptions.
Home » Corvus